From: James Britt <james_b@...>
Date: 2005-10-22T00:26:53+09:00
Subject: Re: Why Write Ruby Docs? (was Re: [SUMMARY] Text Image (#50))

Brian Schr�der wrote:
> On 20/10/05, James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:
> 
>>Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>>
>>>James Britt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Documentation of core and library classs is written in the source code
>>>>>(be it C or Ruby).  Thus to contribute, you want to avail yourself of
>>>>>(anonymous) CVS access (it's easy).  Then you edit files, create a
>>>>>patch, and get it committed.  That last step has been the problem in
>>>>>the past; mea culpa.  Suggested process: email the patch to me and/or
>>>>>James Gray (sorry, James!).  Bug me mercilessly if nothing's being
>>>>>done.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, what is the copyright on submitted docs, and is it made clear to
>>>>those submitting documentation?
>>>
>>>
>>>I have no idea what the copyright situation is.  Of the few people who
>>>have submitted documentation, none have raised the question of
>>>copyright.
>>>
>>>Is there a reason to believe the documentation is treated differently
>>>from the source code of which it's part?  If the documentation is "Ruby
>>>Licence", which I expect it is, what implication does that have for
>>>copyright?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Could someone sell a book that included the text from the std-lib docs?
>>  Would the book have to be released under Ruby's license (whatever that
>>means)?
>>
> 
> 
> The Pickaxe pp. 653-759


They do not appear to be part of the Ruby source distro.

For example, look at the rdoc for the rss library in 1.8.3.  Then look 
at page 728 of pickaxe 2nd Ed.


James